Bosco

2 hours ago, Dj Hammers said:

There was an issue found with the B3C valve (conductor’s emergency valve). It was fixed and the cars will be returning to service shortly. Not really that big of a deal honestly.

 

And it wasn’t even Bombardier’s fault, just to make that clear. 

It's not directly their fault, per se, but they are still responsible for making sure all parts coming from the vendor are functional.  That's how system integration is for Bombardier or Kawasaki.  The builder serves as the liaison between the customer () and the vendor.  When I worked at Kawasaki, any issue that came about, even a vendor part, always went to our desk first.  Bombardier may not have made the faulty part, but they still are in charge for signing off on everything, and something like that should've been caught a while ago considering the first trains are almost two years old now.

Just putting that out there for those who are curious how these things work.  

4 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

I see another R44/46 type of run happening where these cars see minimal service before becoming overhauled again.

Well, didn’t something similar happen with the R142s back in 2007?  I don’t remember exactly what was fixed, just that the R142s were taken OOS for repairs and there were some R142As on the  and .

On 3/30/2018 at 4:24 AM, Amtrak706 said:

ATS centralizes dispatching. It is not a train control system. The IRT still has its fluff timers and it has had ATS for years.

This.  This is also the answer to the question, "What's the difference between ATS and CBTC?"  Unfortunately, the IRT still relies on the same fixed-block signaling technology as the rest of the system (minus the punch boxes).

7 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

It's just awful. The R179s were supposed to be acclaimed for finally finishing the job of the R160s by retiring the last of the SMEEs by 2017, but these lemons are just too sour. 

What we have now is what the R179s have gained notoriety for. This is mainly a half-assed interpretation of what they were supposed to be acclaimed for:

[I'm not quoting each of the items to save space, see OP]

Except even if Bombardier finished the order on time, we'd still have those extra cars because the contract did not factor in the growth of ridership (and was signed before Hurricane Sandy, so there was no way of knowing at the time we'd be in the situation we're in).  If anything, it worked out that Bombardier dropped the ball because we got more 5-car sets out of the deal.  So half of your complaints are automatically invalid.  Also, people on here were speculating over the car assignments ad nauseam long before the shit hit the fan.

18 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Hindsight is 20/20.

As much as I don't like defending the , there was no way they could have known that it was going to be this bad. What other options are there besides rush them into service? They absolutely need operating in a significant capacity on the Eastern Division by the time the Canarsie shutdown happens, and IIRC the shutdown really can't be pushed back any further than it already has.

Agreed, but another issue with the issues of these cars is that even if all of them are placed in service before Canarsie shuts down, what happens if another issue comes up during the shutdown that renders the cars useless for awhile?  Then we're back where we started.  There's no winning here.

7 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

This is really bad news. If the delays in the delivery of the r179's continue, we may end up with a severe car shortage during the shutdown. 

And there's no point of making any more speculations based on this news.

Shame on you Bombardier.  

Absolutely spot on.  Unfortunately, we are cornered, and either Bombardier delivers the 316 cars or they don't.  The whole thing of "cancel the order" has come up numerous times with the delays of the R179.  The MTA's too far in, and they can only sue Bombardier so much because they're financially in the shitter right now.  Those extra 16 cars announced in January were agreed upon in lieu of physical money for damages.

And also shame on the MTA for letting it get to this point, and still rushing things (as we saw with the 30-day test)...

33 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

If the 42's are so bad then why did the TA decide to use them on  shuttle which is isolated from the rest of the system? If they were really that bad, I'm sure we would be hearing about how horrible service is on that shuttle due to the 42's constantly breaking down. They could have easily used 32's, if the 42's can run on a 24/7 shuttle cut off from the overhaul shops, I think they can run for another three years or so when the  train tube work is complete. If anything, they just dump three sets on the Rock Park rush hour  specials if they are that bad 

The R42s are there so that they can run 6-car trains.  The only other fleet that could do that at this point is the R32s, but of course those are needed to help make the  full length.

As has been discussed, the MTA is looking to increase their spare factor, even after full  service is restored.  Not considering that, I still don’t think the MTA ordered nearly enough R179s and it was a mistake to scale down the project—even with the emergency retirement of the R44s.  At the very least, they should have kept at least one option order of 5-car sets.  If anything, the only good thing about Bombardier dropping the ball is that had they finished the contract on time, we would never have gotten those extra cars and there would be a shortage anyway.

On a side note, I’d be surprised if service levels come 2020 are the same as it is now—the areas served by the  continue to grow.  This is why for the R211s, there are more than enough option cars to replace everything before the R68s, and why the total contract at the moment calls for 1612 cars.  While not confirmed, it is possible that some R211s will be in 4-car sets.

5 minutes ago, FlushingExpress said:

Most people commenting here are total hypocrities. They keep whining about how horrible the A is using the 75 footers yet say they would be fine on the N, Q and W when they clearly have much ridership than the A. The Q especially since 2nd Avenue opened, which is why the fat 75 footers will never run on it again. It makes me laugh how they think QBL CBTC will go off without a hitch in recent times many other projects like flushing CBTC, opening of 34th street hudson yards, reopening of cortlandt st and the r179 order were all behind schedule. I rode on QBL recently and barely 10% of the project is done, so R46s to CI will never happen. It's also funny how Jamaica will be 100% R160s yet over the years, Jamaica has been persistently giving its R160s to Coney Island. In fact I think they did it again recently being that i have seen a few r160s on the N Q W with E and F service posters on them. If the ultimate goal was for Jamaica to be all R160s, why didn't they send R46s to CI when the G was transferred there in 2011, when the W was restored, or during last year's state of emergency.

Just because CBTC is nowheres near to be done doesn't mean they won't swap the fleets sooner.  The last R188 was converted almost two years ago, and yet here we are with still no start date.  Plus, almost all R160s are only CBTC-ready.  This means equipment has to be installed, tested, etc.  It's not as intensive as the R188 project (the R142As were not CBTC-ready), but it will still require time to test and upgrade them.  And while the R211s are expected to start delivery in 2021, it won't be until at least the first option order is complete in 2024 that Jamaica can be 100% NTT without taking in more R160s.  As for the ones that went there recently, a few 9200 sets have been there since last year to accommodate the , and with the "Cuomo" trains on the , there have been some swaps.  Some Coney Island R160s got the Cuomo treatment, which is why there have been some 9400 sets on the .

1 minute ago, U-BahnNYC said:

I'm going to have to quote @subwaycommuter1983 on this one

It makes NO sense whatsoever to keep "maybe 3" R42s just because some think it would be nice to see. I'm going to say this one last time, keeping 3 pieces of junk is a complete waste and won't be needed at all once the surplus cars come in. Period. They're only kept around as a plan C, if even that.

I would too, but I KNOW R42s are all but done as soon as the last R179s comes rolling in.

Keeping the R42s for a little longer is not a matter of pleasing foamers.  (If MTA decision makers listened to foamers, the R142As would never have left the , but I digress).  Even under current conditions, the spare factor for most lines is very low.  Why do you think that one R68 set runs on the  in the afternoon?  Because it’s not so people can get pictures.  Every extra set counts, and the MTA learned this after they scrapped many R32s that could’ve been put in the reserve fleet for situations like this.  Plus, with this newest issue with the R179—even if it is fake news—it’s still not likely all R179s will be in service a year from now.

2 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

R179's been oos for about 2 weeks because of Emergency brake issues, thats why they been oos.

So I’m guessing the rumors are true... damn.  There’s just no end.

7 minutes ago, jon2305 said:

When are they supposedly going to transfer from Corona? Any specific time frame?

Within the next few weeks, I believe.  Hopefully that construction on the express track was the last hiccup before CBTC goes online.

10 hours ago, P3F said:

And it's still glitchy as heck. Last night at DeKalb, this was the order of trains displayed:

1. 3 mins

2. 20 mins

3. 2 mins

4. 4 mins.

5. 16 mins.

My guess is that the computer doesn't dynamically update the order of incoming trains.

Those clocks are horrible.  Jumping from 5 minutes to 3 minutes, being stuck at 2 minutes for a period of 3 minutes, etc.  Hopefully ATS will improve reliability (although there are some spots in Midtown that aren't too great--looking at you, Penn Station  ).

Something that should be noted (if it hasn't been already) is that the B division will be significantly harder than the A division.  More tracks, more permutations of reroutes, and more major interlockings.  Given how long it took for the A division, I'm not too optimistic about it being installed on the B division when they say it will be.

1 hour ago, m7zanr160s said:

It's hard for me to believe that 3010-3019 are still have issues when they're the 179's with the most milage; IINM, they were delivered first. My theory is that they're being used to conduct a wide range of test...

Per some people here, they have been doing additional testing on that set, but the fact of the matter is 3010-3019 and 3050-3057 were noticeably different from the rest of the cars when they first arrived.

One of the ways Bombardier agreed to do damage control was to start building the production sets even before 3010-3019 entered service (which as of this posting, is not happening in the foreseeable future).  As issues came up with that set, they were taken into account while the production sets were built, and some modifications were made even after they were delivered to 207 St.  The only 'test' train that was good enough for revenue testing was 3058-3065, and even that set had noticeable issues while testing.  This should explain why 3010-3019 and 3050-3057 are still testing, why 3058-3065 was the first set to enter service, and why the production sets entered service so shortly after the 30-day test concluded.

20 hours ago, VIP said:

Wouldn’t be funny if the  just stayed assigned with R68’s/A’s just arranged in 8 car sets... 

There aren't enough R68/As to go around for that.  Remember, it's full-length trains plus a bump in service.  The only way they can do that along with accommodating everything else is to use 480' trains.

To bring the discussion back to the R179s specifically, is there any reason there haven't been any additional 5-car deliveries?  If we established that the R42s likely aren't going anywhere until after the shutdown--and considering that even then, there are a good amount of 4-car R179s that have been delivered already--how come we haven't seen any 5-car deliveries?

2 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

Im not surprised, they should have converted the whole fleet instead of just 7211-7590.

At the time the R188 was awarded, CBTC on Lexington Avenue was considered way out in the future (and even now, probably won't be done before the R62/A replacements start coming).  More short-sightedness on the MTA's part, but at least they're planning on rectifying it.

The R142 conversion will be interesting because I can't imagine the MTA trusting Bombardier to do the conversions in the same manner Kawasaki did (although the R188 was a special case).

16 hours ago, VIP said:

And with R62A’s 1916-1920/1965-1961... so increase in service or spares? 

Better spare factor, no increase in service for now.  Hopefully the MTA will restore some service on the  for a future pick, but doing so would reduce that spare factor further.  As it is/was, the  never had a great spare factor.  Only the  and  (and soon the ) have a decent amount of spares as far as the IRT is concerned.

In retrospect, it might've been better to have more factory sets of R188s... 

On 3/12/2018 at 5:57 PM, peacemak3r said:

Anyone know what testing they are doing on the southbound Brighton express track with those R46's? Also I've been seeing the same two kids taking videos at Kings Highway, show yourselves! 

They're testing out a new master controller and other new components for braking/propulsion, designed to buy the R46s a little more time.

10 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Word.

The word to sum up your point...... Gullible.

I take whatever's being posted on here & anywhere else with a certain grain of salt until I see & experience it with my own two (eyes)..... It's one thing to respect, give thanks, be appreciative of whoever's "leaking" or otherwise updating some thread{s} with inside information - it is quite another to treat these same people like they're infallible..... Not only because I'm also from that quote-unquote cynical generation, but also because I see that as a sign of weakness....

Hey, if you don't know something, you don't know it.... At the same time, I'm all about thinking for myself too & it baffles me just how many are too lazy or outright afraid to think for themselves....

I don't DR anybody because I HATE being d***ridden on (I have a tendency to smirk whenever I'm complimented anyway)..... I don't want that attention like I'm some sort of messiah.... As many posts I've read over the years from people on these parts saying that I know more about riderbases & rider patterns on bus routes throughout the city than the MTA does (which to me is embarrassing), or asking if I work for the MTA because of it, or otherwise amazed at what I relay in the bus section on here... And I have said this before - I don't see myself as being anything special in that regard.... Anyone that's dedicated enough & cognizant/keen enough can do what I do.... If I want to find out something about some bus route, I go out & do it for myself....

This last part is spot on.  Part of the reason I feel people spread news around (even if it's true but still purely internal) is to garner attention, under the guise that "bad attention is better than no attention."  Being an attention whore is not only misleading, but it jeopardizes people's reputations in the community and in the industry.  And as for people that do work/have worked in industry (I'm one of them), our priority is to get our job done--just like any other job, except we're passionate about what we do.  Signing a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is not a formality.  It's done with the understanding that releasing publicly any information that hasn't been made publicly available and/or could provide information to competitors can cost you your job (and that is not the way you want to go out).  Our job is not to be WikiLeaks, leaking out sensitive information, damaging people's reputations, and costing us our own jobs and security for the sake of getting attention from a few foamers who wouldn't last a day in industry (you know who you are).

4 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

What mods? I thought they do that on the first pilot set and then they just put the rest of the sets through the normal burn in test process.

The R179 project is such a mess that 3010-3019 and 3050-3057, the first sets delivered, had issues that were resolved when the production sets were delivered.  In particular, 3010-3019 has been a problem child from the get-go.  Half of the set lost power (I forget which half) and was MIA for quite a bit.

This was part of the accelerated delivery schedule: build the first production cars while the pilot cars were testing here, and work out the issues on the fly.  Of course, even that didn't go smoothly knowing Bombardier's recent performance.

13 minutes ago, Calvin said:

3111 with 3110 now in NYC

Then I suppose 3112-3113 will be coming tomorrow?  That would be weird considering it's usually been the highest numbers first.

35 minutes ago, Dj Hammers said:

Plans are still up in the air and may change regarding exactly which car type(s) will be on the  line

I wouldn't be surprised if ultimately they decide to run R160A1s on the  for uniformity.  Less work for Coney Island to do.

1 hour ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

It's been a LONG while since that was the case! Most R44's/46's have been on that line for dinosaur years.

It's long overdue, but if that's the case, what will happen with the getting R32s?  Is the CI/Jamaica swap still happening?  Having mostly 60 foot cars on the implies that the remaining R32s will go there.

On 3/7/2018 at 10:27 AM, LTA1992 said:

Seems they are testing the new Kawasaki trucks on an R160. Can't see the number as the photo focuses on the trucks.

Hope they work well and pass their tests. But I'm not in doubt that they will. 

I trust that it will.  There's also the potential of seeing these on other existing Kawasaki fleets as well as the R211 if this goes well.

For anyone who is interested in reading about it: http://global.kawasaki.com/en/mobility/rail/bogie/efwing.html

11 hours ago, LegoBrickBreaker101 said:

I'm not sure if the  will be all R32s, there may be a few R46 sets left if I'm not mistaken, and when the 5-car R179 sets enter service, those will also be on the line, so you'll end up having a mix of R32s, R46s, and R179s.

As for your second question, all they do is just add two extra cars (The R32s and R42s travel as "married pairs", meaning that two cars will stick together as a set and can be configured with other "married pairs", similar to how 5-car sets of R160s can be matched around with other 5-car sets of R160s). That's how the  shuttle is running with only 6 R42 cars per train, they just took 3 8-car sets from the  / , took off a "married pair" from each of the 3 sets and then combined those sets to form 4 6-car sets.

There also aren't enough R32s around to cover the  entirely.  Something else that should be mentioned is that the only way this is possible (since technically the number of cars needed is increased) is to decrease the spare factor of the R32s.  Before the swap, about 160 cars were out during rush hour out of 222 (a spare factor of 28%, which is pretty high for the MTA right now).

6 hours ago, VIP said:

Hence an R32 set being transferred out of East New York. 

Any word as to where?  Perhaps to the  to displace another R46 train to the ?

With 3086-3089+3094-3097 in service, we now have the following trains in service:

3058-3061+3062-3065
3066-3069+3090-3093
3086-3089+3094-3097

So three trains are in service.  The following sets have been delivered but are still waiting to enter service:

3078-3081, 3082-3085, 3098-3101

4 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Update: R179 #3097-3094 and #3089-3086 are on the . Just witnessed it a few moments ago.

In-service or burn-in testing?

This summer will be a good time to fan around Yonkers, when the production M9s are tentatively planned to come through there.  It's real easy to get photos from the north end of the Metro-North station.

12 hours ago, VIP said:

Yes, but not when the conversion was finished.  The  also got it’s service reduced too. 

That is thanks to SAS; the requirement on the  is slightly lower now.  Also, there is still one R142A floating around IINM.
 

15 hours ago, Calvin said:

If this fits the topic: for the next 3 weeks, all trains are local: one making all stops with another during the rush hour to/from 74 St then goes on the middle track to Mets-Wilets Point reducing train traffic. 

I don't see how capacity is greatly affected.  Instead of merging before/after 33 St, they do so around 74 St.  Also, hopefully after this construction will CBTC be any closer to happening?

3098-3101 was seen testing today in the Rockaways.